The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on
our plans to bring the Mental Health Act 1983 into the 21st
century. Today, just as we pledged in the Queen’s Speech, we have
published a draft Mental Health Bill to modernise legislation
that was passed by the House almost 40 years ago and make sure
that it is fit for the future.
Last year, we invested £500 million to support those with mental
health needs who were most affected by the pandemic and, as we
set out in the NHS long-term plan, we are investing record
amounts into expanding and transforming mental health services.
That will reach an extra £2.3 billion each year by 2023-24. Later
this year, we will also publish a new 10-year mental health plan
followed by a 10-year suicide prevention plan, which, as I set
out in a speech on Friday, will place a determined focus on this
major source of grief and heartbreak so that fewer people will
one day get the news that turns their lives upside down. But we
cannot make the critical reforms that we need and that are so
essential to the country’s mental health system without making
sure that the law that underpins our country’s mental health
system is up to date, too.
Since the 1983 Act, our understanding of and attitude towards
mental health has transformed beyond recognition, and it is right
that we act now to bring the Act up to date. The Mental Health
Act was created so that people who have severe mental illnesses
and present a risk to themselves or others can be safely detained
and treated for their own protection and that of those around
them, but there are a number of alarming issues with how the Act
is currently used. Too many people are being detained. They are
also being detained for too long, and there are inequalities
among those who are detained. The previous Prime Minister, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), asked
Professor Sir Simon Wessely to lead a review into the Act. I pay
tribute to my right hon. Friend for her tireless commitment to
this most important of issues and to Sir Simon for his
illuminating report, which made a powerful case for reform and
was rightly welcomed on both sides of the House. It made for
uncomfortable but essential reading, vividly showing how
currently the Act fails patients and their loved ones and
deprives people of autonomy and control over their care.
The draft legislation that we have published today builds on Sir
Simon’s recommendations as well as those in our White Paper,
which was published in partnership with the Ministry of Justice
last year. Just like Sir Simon’s report, the White Paper was
welcomed by both sides of the House. It was also welcomed by
leading charities including Mind, the National Autistic Society
and Rethink, countless mental health professionals and,
critically, the people who use mental health services and their
loved ones. Today, we are showing how we will put the vision into
action. The Bill is a once-in-a-generation reform, and I would
like to set out briefly to the House the important themes that
sit behind it.
First, the Bill rebalances the criteria for detention so that it
will take place only as a last resort when all other options have
been explored and considered. Under the new criteria, people will
be detained only when they pose a significant risk of harm to
themselves and others, and patients should be detained only if
they will benefit from the treatment that is made possible by
their detention.
Secondly, the Bill shows how we will give patients more control
over their care and treatment. It will ensure that, in most
cases, clinicians can administer compulsory treatment only if
there is a strong reason to do so. In future, all patients
formally detained under the Act will have a statutory right to a
care and treatment plan, drawn up between the patient and their
clinician, and personalised based on the patient’s needs. It will
give them a clear road map to their discharge from hospital.
There are some cases when patients are not able to make decisions
about their own care or feel that they could benefit from greater
support. Currently, patients are not always able to choose who
can represent them, as their nearest relative automatically
qualifies to act on their behalf. The Bill will change that,
allowing patients to choose a nominated person who they believe
is best placed to look after their interests. The Bill will also
increase the powers of that nominated person, so that they can be
consulted about the patient’s future care.
Thirdly, the Bill will tackle the disparities in how the 1983 Act
is used. Black people are four times more likely to be detained
under the Act than white people, and 10 times more likely to be
placed on a community treatment order. The Bill provides for
greater scrutiny of decision making, including through greater
use of second opinions on important decisions, and through
expanded access to independent tribunals; that will help us to
address the disparities in the use of the Act.
Fourthly, the Bill will enhance support for patients with severe
mental health needs who come into contact with the criminal
justice system. Under the 1983 Act, too often, people in prison
experience delays in getting treatment in hospital. Courts are
sometimes forced to divert defendants who require care and
treatment, some of whom have not been convicted, to prison as a
so-called place of safety. The Bill will make crucial
improvements so that vulnerable offenders and those awaiting
trial can access the treatment that they need. It will tackle
delays and speed up access to specialist care by introducing a
new statutory 28-day time limit for transfers from prison to
hospital, and it will end the use of prison as a so-called place
of safety, so that patients can get the care that they need in
the appropriate hospital setting.
The Bill will also amend the Bail Act 1976 so that courts are no
longer forced to deny a defendant bail if the judge’s sole
concern about granting bail has to do with the defendant’s mental
health. The Bill will allow the judge to send them to hospital
instead, so that they can be in the best environment for their
mental health and can receive any treatment that they need.
Finally, the Bill will improve the way that people with a
learning disability and autistic people are treated under the
1983 Act. One of my priorities in my role is personalised care.
The current blanket approach cannot be allowed to continue; it
means that too many autistic people and people with a learning
disability are admitted into institutional settings when they
would be better served by being in the community. The Bill will
change this. It limits the scope for detaining people with
learning disabilities and autistic people for treatment unless
they have a mental illness that justifies a longer stay or they
are admitted through the criminal justice system. It also gives
commissioners of local authorities and integrated care boards new
duties to make sure that the right community support is available
instead.
I look forward to working with hon. Members in all parts of the
House as we take these plans forward. This momentous Bill deals
with one of the most serious and sombre responsibilities of any
Government: their responsibility for the power to deprive people
of their liberty. Mental ill health can impact any of us at any
time. It is essential that we all have confidence that the system
will treat us and our loved ones with dignity and compassion.
That is what the Bill will deliver. I commend the statement to
the House.
15:43:00
(Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the
statement, and for sharing his family’s experiences over the
weekend. I am so sorry to hear about the circumstances
surrounding his brother’s tragic death.
This overhaul of the Mental Health Act 1983 is long awaited. We
welcome the draft Bill, and the fact that the Government have
accepted the majority of the recommendations from Sir Simon
Wessely’s independent review of the Act. It was interesting to
hear, in the statement, of the Government’s focus on keeping
people in crisis out of A&E, and of their plans to reduce the
use of general ambulance call-outs for those experiencing a
mental health crisis. In 2020, there were over 470,000 calls to
999 because someone was in a mental health crisis, which took up
an estimated 66,000 hours of call time. In my email inbox, I have
numerous examples from across the country of children being stuck
in A&E for over 24 hours waiting for a mental health bed. One
child waited over three days. When I work shifts in A&E, I
see more and more people coming into hospital in crisis. The
increased frequency is deeply concerning. Conditions are getting
worse and illnesses are going untreated. We would not allow that
in cancer treatment, so why is it allowed in mental health
treatment?
Deprivation of liberty and the use of coercion can cause lasting
trauma and distress. That is especially true for children and
young people who find themselves in these most difficult
situations and whose voices are often not heard when decisions
are made. We are pleased that patients will have greater autonomy
over their treatment in a mental health crisis, and we are glad
that the Government have been working with organisations to
listen to the experiences of those with learning disabilities or
autism, but will the Secretary of State explain what safeguards
will be put in place for people with learning disabilities or
autism should the worst happen and they find themselves in
prison? This is not a straightforward issue. Many people with
learning disabilities or autism also live with serious mental
illnesses, and we have to make sure that they have their rights
protected and have dignity in their treatment.
In our communities, we witness the harsh reality of the health
inequalities that so desperately need to be addressed. As the
Secretary of State said, black people are over four times more
likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act.
(Liverpool, Riverside)
(Lab)
Will my good friend give way?
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Minister cannot give way; this is a statement.
Dr Allin-Khan
We need to advance the mental health equality framework and there
must be culturally appropriate services and the freedom for local
areas to look at their specific populations in order to have the
most suitable approaches. Culturally appropriate community
provision is vital for mental health services that are truly
joined-up and effective and that, crucially, work well for
patients. Will the Secretary of State also provide reassurances
on the future of community care and on how they will work with
local authorities across the country to deliver community
provision that works?
Mental health staffing levels are absolutely crucial to ensuring
that mental health services are fit for purpose. More than a year
and a half ago, I asked the Secretary of State’s predecessor
about the future of mental health staffing. The proposals that
have been set out today go well beyond what has been committed to
in the long-term plan. Labour has a plan: to recruit an extra
8,500 mental health staff to treat 1 million additional patients
a year by the end of our first term in office. Will the Secretary
of State outline when we will get the workforce settlement? What
reassurance can he give on filling training places?
For too long, the Government have had their head in the sand when
it comes to mental health. They have failed on eradicating
dormitories from mental health facilities, failed on cracking
down on the use of restraint, and failed on getting on top of
waiting times. We cannot have this kicked into the long grass
and, if it gets lost in the political quagmire of Conservative
in-fighting, should the Government call an early general
election, people will suffer. We cannot have the Government fail
on mental health legislation any longer. This is a
once-in-a-generation opportunity; we simply must get this right
for everyone who depends on these vital services.
I thank the hon. Lady, particularly for her remarks at the start
of her response about my personal experience.
I think the hon. Lady agrees with me, as does everyone in this
House, that the 1983 Act is outdated. Society has learned since
then, rightly, that people’s mental and emotional wellbeing is as
important as their physical wellbeing. That was recognised in the
Health and Care Act 2022, which came before Parliament recently,
and this draft Bill does a lot to change the situation as well.
The hon. Lady talked, rightly, about the importance of mental
health services. The NHS is putting record funding into NHS
services. Some 1.25 million people were seen through the NHS
talking therapies service, despite the pressures of the pandemic,
and an additional £500 million of resources was put into mental
health services because of the pandemic.
On the workforce, today in the NHS, we have around 129,000 health
professionals focused on mental health. That is the highest
number ever, and the number has gone up by some 20,000 since
March 2016. As for the NHS’s strategic workforce plan—the 15-year
plan on which it is currently working—having the correct
provision for mental health will, of course, be a very important
part of that.
(Maidenhead) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement and thank him
for his kind comments. I also join the Opposition Front Bencher,
the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), in commending him
for sharing his family’s experience. It shows that this is not
just a piece of legislation from a Secretary of State; it comes
from somebody who understands the issue.
I welcome the publication of the draft Mental Health Bill. While
it is necessary for it to be given proper scrutiny, does my right
hon. Friend join me in believing that we need to get these new
provisions on the statute book as quickly as possible, to ensure
that all those who are going through a mental health crisis can
indeed be treated with the dignity and compassion that they
deserve?
Let me thank my right hon. Friend again for the crucial role that
she has played in getting the House to this point today with the
publication of the draft Bill. It was her commitment to giving
mental health parity with physical health that has led us to this
important point. I agree absolutely with her. The draft Bill is
before the House today. No doubt there will be prelegislative
scrutiny, which I strongly welcome, to have the Bill ready as
quickly as possible for First Reading in this House and to make
sure that it becomes legislation as quickly as possible.
(Lewisham East) (Lab)
I welcome this statement from the Government, but I am concerned
about constituents who have a mental health crisis and present at
A&E departments. Because of long waiting times, they are
usually unable to wait to be seen by a psychiatrist. Can the
Secretary of State say how that will be addressed in the Mental
Health Bill to make sure that people get the urgent treatment
they need when they present at A&E departments?
The hon. Lady is right to raise the matter. I can tell her—
helpfully, I hope—that the Bill is not that important in terms of
getting what she wants to see, which is more care for people when
they present themselves at A&E with mental health challenges.
That is work that is already prioritised with the NHS. During the
pandemic, as she and other hon. Members will understand, there
were increased issues around mental health and people not getting
care in the normal way; that is why we have put record resources
into the NHS, including into A&E provision of mental health
services.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
(South West Surrey) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend’s courage in talking about his
family’s tragedy, which is one of the most difficult things to do
in politics. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for
Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her commitment to mental health, which
is unparalleled among any Prime Minister I have known in this
place; it made an enormous difference to me when I was Health
Secretary.
I support wholeheartedly what the Health Secretary has said
today. I hope that he does not mind my saying that in one
instance it does not go far enough: there are still 2,000 people
with autism and learning disabilities in secure institutions,
effectively incarcerated, even though they would be better off in
the community. It is a human rights scandal. As part of the
remedy, would he consider changing the rules on sectioning so
that, after a short period, anyone who wanted to keep someone in
a secure unit would have to reapply for sectioning every week or
two, so pressure is put on the system to find a better solution?
We are determined to reduce the number of people with learning
disabilities and autism who are in mental health hospitals. As
part of those plans, we will shortly publish the cross-Government
“Building the right support” plan to drive progress; I will have
more to say about that shortly. I listened carefully to my right
hon. Friend’s suggestion and would be happy to meet him to
discuss it further.
(St Albans) (LD)
I was incredibly moved to learn of the Secretary of State’s
personal experience with this issue. I commend his courage in
talking about a deeply personal issue.
In his statement, the Secretary of State outlined that patients
will be able
“to choose a nominated person who they believe is best placed to
look after their interests.”
Could he outline what rights that nominated person might have? I
have a particular issue in my constituency: somebody has been
moved from one part of the country to another, but their next of
kin was not asked for permission and only found out after the
event. I think that it is incredibly important not only that
there is a nominated person, but that that person has outlined
rights that can be enforced in these situations.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes the change that will
come about through the Bill. The draft version has only just been
published, and I appreciate that she will need time to digest it,
but it does explain how the nominated person—who does not have to
be a family member, but can be anyone whom the individual chooses
and trusts—will be able to co-produce the treatment plan for that
individual and work with him or her very closely.
(Harlow) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend look at a book published this week by
Liz Cole and Molly Kingsley of the UsForThem parents group, which
discusses the damage to children’s mental health during lockdown?
We know that the number of referrals has increased by 60%, and
that eating disorders among young girls rose by 400% during
lockdown. Will my right hon. Friend set out measures to help
children with their mental health? Given the damage that social
media companies do to children’s mental health, will he consider
a social media levy to raise money to fund mental health
resilience, and will he also consider introducing a longer school
day with extra sporting and wellbeing activities to help those
children further?
My right hon. Friend has made the important point that children
need full mental health support in normal times, but need it
particularly when experiencing the impact of a pandemic. I will
take a look at the book that he mentioned. Levies, as he will
know, are a matter for the Treasury, but I am sure that he
welcomes some of the measures in the Online Safety Bill. I should
be happy to meet him and discuss some of his other proposals
further.
(Norwich South) (Lab)
I think the whole House will welcome many of the changes that the
Bill represents. I especially welcome the section on black mental
health and on the situation of people who are being incarcerated
in the mental health system, but many of my constituents have
suffered the effects of eight years of systemic and catastrophic
failure on the part of their mental health trusts. What
provisions in the Bill will make a difference to them following
nearly 1,000 excess deaths in our mental health trusts? I know
that he has committed himself to meeting me to talk about this,
but will he also commit himself to meeting many of the victims of
those eight years of failure who will be coming to Parliament
next Tuesday to discuss what has happened to them? Perhaps he
will be able to tell them how the Bill will turn their lives
around and make a difference to them and their families.
I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me—as I think he does,
given the way in which he framed his question—that the Bill is a
huge step forward, especially in respect of the important issue
of dealing with some of the inequalities in provision which we
all know have existed, and which he mentioned at the beginning of
his question. The way in which we change things will be not just
through the Bill but through continued investment, and by
ensuring that, when trusts are failing, those failures are
addressed. As the hon. Gentleman said, I will be meeting him, but
the Minister for Care and Mental Health will be happy to meet the
constituents he mentioned.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
I commend the statement, and I commend my right hon. Friend’s
bravery in sharing that story. After speaking to friends, I
decided to share my own story: twice I attempted to take my own
life. Thankfully I did not succeed, but when I needed help, I was
lucky enough to be able to get that help. Sadly, that is not the
case for too many people throughout our United Kingdom, at a time
when 40% of GP appointments are related specifically to mental
health.
As my right hon. Friend will know, I am supporting the No Time to
Wait campaign, led by my good friend , who is trying to ensure
that there is a mental health nurse in every GP surgery in the
country to help with the early intervention that we know is so
critical. There is a great example in Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
Foundation Trust, led by Lisa Dymond. Will my right hon. Friend,
in the course of his work on this draft legislation, engage with
that trust to see the work that it is doing to ensure that we can
provide the access that people so desperately need?
May I first commend my hon. Friend for sharing his story and for
being so open about it? There is no doubt that that will help a
great many other people. I am sure he will welcome the
Government’s plans for a new 10-year suicide prevention plan. I
agree with him about the need to continue to work on improving
provision, and I believe I will be having a meeting with him and
Mr Starkie to discuss his campaign further.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly commend what the Secretary of State said over the
weekend. Many of us have experienced suicide in our own families,
and it is good when people like him can share their experience; I
think it helps an awful lot of people around the country.
Can I ask the Secretary of State about brain injury, which he
knows I am a bit obsessed with? I visited three units—in
Newcastle, Birmingham and Sheffield—the week before last. The big
problem is that people are being given what is called a
neurorehabilitation prescription, which is very similar to what
he has described, but unfortunately, the moment they leave the
trauma unit, the services that they require simply are not
available in vast parts of the country. There are not enough
occupational therapists, speech and language therapists,
physiotherapists or psychiatrists to do that work.
The most distressing thing I heard was at the Birmingham
Children’s Hospital—it does not have a hydrotherapy pool, which
would be useful; nor does any other children’s hospital in the
UK—which saw a 70% increase in brain injuries in children during
covid from parents attacking their children. How are we going to
get the workforce we need in order to make a difference to those
people’s lives?
The hon. Gentleman will know that the investment already going
into the workforce is at record levels. As the NHS sets out its
15-year workforce strategy, it will look into acquired brain
injury, and rightly so. I thank him for the work he is doing with
the Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the
Member for Chichester (), on the ABI strategy. I
understand that the call for evidence has just closed. That
process will also help to bring about the change that he seeks.
(Hastings and Rye)
(Con)
I met some amazing young people from my constituency last week
during the “It’s our Care” lobby of Parliament, and one issue
they raised was mental health among looked-after children. What
steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that the mental
health needs of looked-after children are taken into account, so
that they, too, can thrive?
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We have increased to a
record level resources for mental health services for children,
including looked-after children, but we need to ensure that the
strategy is fit for the future. This will be a key part of our
10-year mental health strategy.
(Warrington North)
(Lab)
Global research into psilocybin has shown that it has significant
potential for the treatment of mental health conditions,
including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anorexia
and alcohol addiction. However, its schedule 1 status under the
Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 is hindering research in the UK
and condemning thousands of people to unnecessary suffering. The
organisation Heroic Hearts, which supports military and emergency
services veterans with PTSD, has to facilitate patients’ travel
abroad to access treatment that they should be able to receive
here, where appropriate. Can the Secretary of State please tell
the House what conversations he has had, or intends to have, with
the Home Office about the rescheduling of psilocybin to ensure
that this vital area of mental health research can be progressed
and treatment can be brought into the 21st century with this
Bill?
The hon. Lady has raised an important issue. As she has said,
rescheduling is an issue for the Home Office, and I will make
sure that I take this up with the Home Secretary.
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on autism, a role I
took on after we lost . From her position in this
place, she was tireless in highlighting the fact that there is a
difference between those who suffer lifelong development
disabilities such as autism and those who have mental health
conditions, although it is fair to say that those with autism
suffer with a higher proportion of mental health conditions. As
things stand, 61% of those in mental health hospitals have autism
as a condition—that is 1,200 people—and the figure used to be
38%.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s draft mental health Bill. Will
he meet members of the all-party parliamentary group to discuss
what the Bill will do for those with autism? Can I also parrot
the call from the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon.
Friend the Member for South West Surrey (), about the need to review the
sectioning of those in mental health provision? There are far too
many people languishing, and they need our help.
I agree with my hon. Friend. The reforms that we have set out
today in this draft Bill mean that, in the absence of a mental
health condition, learning disability and autism will no longer
be a reason for people to be detained in a mental health hospital
after an initial period of assessment. I would be happy to meet
him and his APPG.
(Battersea) (Lab)
I am disappointed that, yet again, the Department has not
produced all the papers for me in large print; it has produced
all the papers in standard print. I hope the Secretary of State
will take that away and ensure I receive my papers as soon as
possible.
I am sure the Secretary of State will share my disappointment
that, in England, 24% of all children’s mental health referrals
are closed before the child receives any support. In my
Adjournment debate last week, I highlighted the importance of
children’s mental health services and trauma support and care, so
will he reassure the House and me that he will do everything in
his power to make sure children receive timely mental health
support?
Of course the hon. Lady should get the Bill and any other
documentation she needs in large print, and I am sorry that she
has not. I will take that up. I apologise to her, and she makes a
very important point.
Support for children, even before the pandemic, was rightly a
priority. Funding will increase to record levels by 2023, with an
additional £2.3 billion in total so that an additional 345,000
children and young people can be seen. We put in an additional
£79 million during the pandemic, and we will set out in our new
10-year mental health strategy exactly how we will do more.
(Keighley) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for bringing forward this draft
Mental Health Bill. I have met key individuals across Keighley in
recent months who provide mental health and wellbeing support and
advice, including , Ryan Anderton, Bill Graham and
one of our hard-working GPs, Caroline Rayment. They are all
passionate about this subject, and I am sure they will be pleased
to see greater autonomy in providing personalised care. A key
issue they have raised with me is that of adults and children
with learning difficulties. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that
the Bill will help those with learning difficulties to engage
further with mental health and wellbeing services?
Yes, it will. I set out in my earlier answers some of the Bill’s
changes for those with learning difficulties and autism. I think
my hon. Friend will also welcome the publication of the new
10-year mental health plan.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State may recall that I am very much involved
with the Autism Commission, and I hope he has seen our recent
report on autism’s lifelong impact on families. I support
everything he has said this afternoon, except one thing. We need
a deep cultural change in this area, whether it is GPs
understanding more and having more proficiency, or teachers and
schools recognising early signs of difficulty and struggle. If we
believe in levelling up, why do only wealthy people get easy
access to therapy? As I found when I chaired the Education
Committee, we need more therapists and more therapy to be
available.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about cultural change. Whether we
are talking about teachers or healthcare professionals, we need
to make sure they have a certain level of training on autism. I
am sure he knows the NHS has started rolling out a type of
mandatory training on autism, and I would be happy to meet him to
discuss how we can go further in the light of that report.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
This is an enormously welcome Bill, not least in my constituency,
where I have campaigned endlessly for better mental health
services and for a hub at our wonderful Cromer Hospital. As
Norfolk has the slowest ambulance response times and the most
mental health referrals in the UK, how can we access the £7
million-worth of specialist mental health ambulance services?
First, I commend my hon. Friend on the work he has done. I
remember meeting him to discuss this important issue, and I
welcome his support for the Bill. He may know that the extra
support of around £150 million announced today includes £7
million of support for mental health ambulances.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
Clause 31 states that transfers from prison to hospital should
take place within 28 days of a referral notice,
“unless there are exceptional circumstances”,
and makes it very clear that those exceptional circumstances do
not include a shortage of staff or beds. That is welcome, but at
the moment about 50% of prisoners who are assessed as needing
transfer to hospital are not transferred because the beds are not
available. What can the Secretary of State do to make sure that
that is not an issue by the time the Bill becomes law?
The NHS is already preparing for this change. Of course, this is
not law yet and we can make progress before it becomes law, but I
believe that once it does become law, subject to the will of this
House, it will galvanise more parts of the NHS to make sure that
that commitment is met at all times.
(Ipswich) (Con)
I very much welcome the Bill’s focus on autism and special
educational needs. Having a learning disability often means that
your brain is wired a bit differently, and often you feel like
you are not understood, and that can contribute to mental ill
health. On Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trust, we have been
languishing for seven years and that has led to hundreds of
people losing their lives. Will the Secretary of State assure me
that this Bill will be part of ensuring that never again will we
let failure last so long and the cost be so high?
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Sadly, we have
instances around the country where certain trusts have failed
local people when it comes to mental health. He mentions Norfolk
and Suffolk. We need to do better. This Bill and the resources
behind it will make the difference.
Mrs (Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
Through my role as a lay manager for Birmingham and Solihull
mental health trust, I know that a major problem in the west
midlands is the availability of beds for individuals detained by
the police under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This
is having a huge impact on A&E services in our area, because
that is where the police take patients if there are no mental
health beds available. How does the Secretary of State plan to
improve bed availability for mental health patients?
I know that the hon. Lady speaks with experience, and I listen
carefully to her when she speaks on these important issues. She
may have seen the announcement earlier today that the additional
support of around £150 million will go towards addressing her
exact point about more provision, including crisis houses and
sanctuaries—I also mentioned mental health ambulances earlier—and
I think that will help.
(North West Durham)
(Con)
This is an enormously welcome Bill on an issue on which I have
campaigned and spoken to the Secretary of State about previously.
North West Durham has an historic and ongoing issue, with suicide
rates at double the national average. I commend him for speaking
about his personal situation, and I look forward to the 10-year
mental health plan and the 10-year suicide prevention plan. Will
he outline how the Bill will reform the totally outdated Mental
Health Act; how it will make a particular difference to those
with serious mental health issues in my constituency, including
children with anorexia issues whose parents have brought them to
see me recently; and how it will deliver for people and their
families as they go through really difficult treatment, making it
more personalised for them?
I commend my hon. Friend on all the campaigning he has done on
mental health and suicide prevention ever since he entered the
House. The meetings I have had with him have gone directly into
the publication of this Bill. The Bill will make a difference. I
have summarised how it will result in more personalised care.
Alongside the new resources, it will really help his constituents
and many others.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Bill. The acuteness of people’s mental health
challenges while in the community is escalating before
appropriate intervention is taken. How will the Bill ensure that
earlier interventions are made, so that people do not have to go
into secure accommodation for their safety?
Once the Bill is law, it will require the use of secure
accommodation to be limited to those who absolutely need to be
detained, either for their protection or for the protection of
others. Alongside the Bill, we need to make sure that the right
resources are there. I mentioned earlier the extra resources that
are going in, to a record level, including today’s announcement
of the £150 million.
(Blaydon) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for sharing his personal
experience, which it is so important to do. Will he tell me how
he will match up the welcome provisions in the Bill with the need
to ensure that action is taken? How will the resources match the
responsibilities in the Bill?
When it comes to resources for mental health, we have not been
waiting for the Bill. Although the Bill is an important part of
ensuring that people get the right treatment, the commitment to
resources began with the NHS’s long-term plan, which means that
an additional £2.3 billion a year will be going into mental
health services by 2023-24. Alongside that, an additional £500
million at least has gone in to support people with mental health
needs because of the pandemic.
(Luton South) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial
Interests, as a vice-president of the Local Government
Association.
Far too many people are sent to mental health and learning
disability placements out of their area. In April 2021, the
Government committed to end the practice, but in March 2022 some
670 people were in out-of-area placements and, most concerningly,
50 of them were more than 300 km away from their homes. When will
the Government meet their target and end out-of-area placements?
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the
Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
about the issue of commissioning?
This is a very important issue on which the Government have been
working with people across the sector, including in the NHS. We
will shortly publish information on how we will build in the
right support in the community plan.
(Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I am afraid we are overseeing a scandal brewing in compulsory
treatment as a result of covid. Because of the lack of available
tier 4 beds, children up and down the country are in medical
wards, and we see unsettling reports of restraint being used to
feed them even though, when they get to see a mental health
professional, they should not be force fed. I am conscious that
the Secretary of State has answered a question about this
already, but will the Government commit to starting to record
restraint for feeding, no matter where patients are in the system
and including in medical wards?
We of course want to ensure that children with mental health
challenges, including eating disorders, get the support that they
need. That is why during the pandemic—just last year—we put in an
additional £79 million specifically for children’s mental health
services. That is providing many thousands more children with
that support.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Bill’s focus is on individuals who are sectioned under the
Mental Health Act, which is important, but I refer the Secretary
of State back to the issue of waiting times raised by many
Members. In December, I spoke to my constituent who was concerned
about the welfare of his child who suffers from an eating
disorder. At every stage, it has impacted his mental health.
Despite the local services, this child is still waiting, six
months on, just to see a specialist. The limited staff available
cannot cope. What is the Secretary of State doing now to address
the issue so that we do not see more young people suffer?
We are putting in record amounts of new investment, with newer
services. During the pandemic, we established for the first time
a national 24/7 all-age mental health helpline. I would like to
make that permanent, beyond the pandemic. When it comes to NHS
talking therapies, I mentioned earlier that some 1.25 million
people were seen last year. We aim to get that up to 1.9 million
over the next couple of years. When it comes to waiting times,
the hon. Lady is right that there is a waiting time for
high-intensity mental health services, and the NHS is of course
working to bring that down. For low-intensity mental health
services we have managed to bring the median waiting time down to
14 days nationally.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment to make
things better. We are most grateful for that. I wholeheartedly
welcome the strategy in his statement on mental health, but I am
of the belief that the lockdown has impacted and exacerbated
mental health issues in each corner of this great United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
With that being the case, can the Secretary of State tell me what
discussions have taken place with the relevant Minister in the
Northern Ireland Assembly? Furthermore, the Secretary of State
said that £2.3 billion had previously been allocated for this.
How much will come to Northern Ireland through the Barnett
consequentials, taking into account the fact that Northern
Ireland has the largest percentage of mental health disorders in
the United Kingdom and is in need of similar radical reform and,
indeed, additional funding as well?
Much of the work that has gone into the publication of this draft
Bill, such as that carried out by Sir Simon as well as the work
that went into the White Paper, would apply equally to Northern
Ireland. We stand ready to work with our friends in Northern
Ireland to help them if they wish to go down a similar route. I
can also confirm that the Barnett consequentials for the £2.3
billion would have gone to Northern Ireland.
